The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder after shooting his stepfather and his stepfather's companion.
At trial, the appellant admitted the actus reus but raised a mental disorder defence under s. 16 of the Criminal Code and argued he lacked the requisite intent.
The trial judge extensively reviewed the mental disorder evidence when discussing the s. 16 defence but only briefly referred back to it when instructing the jury on planning and deliberation.
The trial judge also instructed the jury that hiding the murder weapon could indicate consciousness of guilt.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury charge as a whole sufficiently related the mental disorder evidence to the issue of planning and deliberation.
While the trial judge erred in failing to limit the consciousness of guilt instruction to the s. 16 issue, the Court applied the curative proviso as the error was minor and would not have affected the verdict.
